Just today, I realized how I can make my practice more meaningful to me when I recite Bodhisattva names or sutras (mostly sutras). I chant them. Not of course, how they are chanted in East Asia but kind of like Gregorian style chant that is now unfortunately not heard anymore in masses. As soon as I did this, I felt very connected to my spirituality and my personal practice. It helps me focus and actually remind myself that I am reciting the teachings of Shakyamuni.

Speaking from my cultural background, I would find (or at least I think I found) a way to incorporate the day of the dead into my practice and use it as a reminder of impermanence. The little sugar skulls are great reminders of impermanence too ^_^

It has been said that wherever Buddhism went, it adapted to the local culture. How come we dont see sutras written in Western style calligraphy or stained glass images of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas?

Perhaps I might start a Western style shakyo (sutra copying) in Western-style calligraphy.

Master Chin Kung said that when Buddhism was introduced to China, if way-places were built in Indian style, the Chinese people would of founded it to be too foreign.

Takes time perhaps?

Either way, Im still grateful for the dharma we have now regardless of culture.

Sonrisa wrote:Just today, I realized how I can make my practice more meaningful to me when I recite Bodhisattva names or sutras (mostly sutras). I chant them. Not of course, how they are chanted in East Asia but kind of like Gregorian style chant that is now unfortunately not heard anymore in masses. As soon as I did this, I felt very connected to my spirituality and my personal practice. It helps me focus and actually remind myself that I am reciting the teachings of Shakyamuni.

Good for you!

Speaking from my cultural background, I would find (or at least I think I found) a way to incorporate the day of the dead into my practice and use it as a reminder of impermanence. The little sugar skulls are great reminders of impermanence too ^_^

Excellent use of skillful means!

It has been said that wherever Buddhism went, it adapted to the local culture. How come we dont see sutras written in Western style calligraphy or stained glass images of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas?

Well, sometimes we do. Have a look at this:http://berkeleymonastery.org/The images of stained glass, the four great bodhisattvas, are from the shrine hall of the monastery itself. Behind the statue of the buddha is also a large stained glass Amitabha.

To be honest, when I first started practicing Buddhism, it felt a bit "foreign" to me. I got used to it eventually and found my own ways of incorporating the Buddha dharma into my daily life and practice. So far, it's very enriching as well.

Thank you for the advice on looking for a good translation for sutra copying.

Revised excerpt from Berzin, Alexander and Chodron, Thubten. Glimpse of Reality. Singapore: Amitabha Buddhist Centre, 1999.Question: This year you have been on a teaching tour to twenty-six countries. Please share with us your observations of how Buddhism is spreading to new places.

Answer: Buddhism is spreading rapidly around the world now. There are Buddhist centers in many European countries, North America, South America, South Africa, Australasia, and so on. We find Buddhists in Europe not only in the Western capitalist countries, but also in the socialist countries of the East. For example, Poland has about five thousand active Buddhists.

Buddhism appeals very much to the modern world because it is reasonable and scientifically based. Buddha said, "Do not believe in anything that I say just out of respect for me, but test it for yourself, analyze it, as if you were buying gold." Modern-day people like such a nondogmatic approach.

There are many dialogues between scientists and Buddhist leaders, such as His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Together they are discussing and investigating what is reality. Buddha said that all problems come from not understanding reality, from being confused in this regard. If we were aware of who we are and how the world and we exist, we would not create problems out of our confusion. Buddhism has an extremely open attitude in examining what is true. For example, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that if scientists can prove that something Buddha or his followers taught is incorrect or just superstition, he would be happy and willing to drop it from Buddhism. Such an approach is very attractive to Western people.

Since learned masters of the past have adapted Buddhism to the culture of each society to which it has spread, it is only natural that teachers today need to present Buddhism in different modern countries in slightly different ways. In general, Buddhism emphasizes a rational explanation. Within this context, however, different points and approaches need more emphasis depending on predominant cultural traits.

Buddha taught such a variety of methods, simply because people vary so much. Not everyone thinks in the same way. Consider the example of food. If there were only one type of food available in a city, it would not appeal to everyone. If, on the other hand, different foods could be had with varied flavors, everyone could find something appealing. Likewise, Buddha taught a large variety of methods for people with a wide spectrum of tastes to use to develop themselves and grow. After all, the objective of Buddhism is to overcome all our limitations and problems and to realize all our potentials so that we can develop ourselves to the point at which we can help everyone as much as is possible.

In some Western countries that emphasize psychology, such as Switzerland and the United States, teachers usually present Buddhism from the point of view of psychology. In other countries where people prefer a devotional approach, such as many Southern European lands and in Latin America, teachers tend to present Buddhism in a devotional manner. People there like to chant very much, and one can do that in Buddhist practice. People in Northern European countries, however, do not enjoy chanting as much. Teachers tend to emphasize an intellectual approach to Buddhism there.

Many people in Eastern Europe are in a very sad situation. The Buddhist teachings appeal to them greatly because many find their lives empty. Whether they work hard at their jobs or not seems to make no difference. They see no results. Buddhism, in contrast, teaches them methods for working on themselves, which do bring results that make a difference in the qualities of their lives. This makes people unbelievably appreciative and enthusiastic to throw themselves fully into practices such as making thousands of prostrations.

In this way, Buddhism adapts itself to the culture and the mentality of the people in each society, while preserving the major teachings of Buddha. The principal teachings are not changed – the aim is to overcome our problems and limitations and to realize our potentials. Whether practitioners do this with more emphasis on the psychological, intellectual, scientific, or devotional approach depends on the culture.

Question: How is Buddhism adapting to the twentieth century in general?

Answer: Buddhism is adapting by emphasizing a rational scientific approach to its teachings. Buddhism gives a clear explanation of how life’s experiences come about and how to deal with them in the best manner possible. Then it says do not accept anything on blind faith; think for yourself, test it out and see if it actually does make sense. This resembles science asking us to verify the results of an experiment by repeating it ourselves, and only then to accept the results as fact. Modern people do not like buying something without examining it; they would not buy a car without testing it. Likewise, they will not turn to another religion or philosophy of life without checking it first to see if it really makes sense. That is what makes Buddhism so appealing to many people of the twentieth century. Buddhism is open to scientific investigation and invites people to examine it in that way.

Also, Venerable Thubten Chodron has a few things to say in this interview. Can't find the original link, but I have it on a blog -Interview

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy

Thank you for the interview article ^_^ It is indeed very interesting to see how the Buddha dharma adapts according to the cultural traits of the people. Some of the stuff you describe here, I can totally relate to (Im sure we all can). For one example, now that I have discovered the meaning of certain practices, I am happy to prostrate in respect to the Dharma (Although sometimes, I did many prostrations I did not want to stop. My legs felt very woozy afterward)

Umm,.. I don't think Buddhism adapted. The teachings are the same as they ever were, though they've been recompiled many many times. The Bodhisattva path of Mahayana existed at the time of Buddha Shakyamuni and presumably Vajrayana also but even if it didn't it conforms with what Shakyamuni taught.

There's a ton of cultural nonsense though, Buddhist Christmas and what not, and that changes from place to place.

In the past Buddhism was a Western religion. You can see pictures of Greek Buddhas if you google.

It is human to adopt things and make them step by step his own/mine Be careful that it doesn't grows to something that needs to defend at the end. Keep it open as it is, the heart and all its expressions.

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

spiritnoname wrote: In the past Buddhism was a Western religion. You can see pictures of Greek Buddhas if you google.

Where "Greek" = "Bactrian / Persian (Greek)", still in Asia-minor, not yet Europe.

Not totally. Greek also meant (and in this sense primarily meant) Macedonian - Gandhara was founded by troops who were left behind by Alexander the Great.

Kirt

Yes, I should have added "Macedonian".

But the point I wanted to make was that most people nowadays think of modern "Greece" when the term "Greek" is used. But that is simply not the case here. I find it very difficult to say "In the past Buddhism was a Western religion" on this basis.

Firstly, just because something could have happened, does not mean that it did. Each of us must decide for ourselves what is factual and useful to us.

Secondly, westerners are sometimes prone to harshness about the evils of their own culture, and see the 'mystic east' as somehow a spiritually pure 'Shangri-la'. Equally, I know of many (young) Indians who are keen to abandon what I value as the positive aspects of their own culture in a mad rush to adopt the worst aspects of western culture.

It's a melting pot, and 'caveat emptor'. I may have a strong desire to adopt the Buddhism which has reached me via Tibet, but no desire whatsoever to adopt the serfdom culture which apparently accompanied its historical growth in that culture.

I also have difficulty with the concept of 'Western Buddhism' - we Europeans have spent most of our history fighting each other and, much as they try to arrange one, I see no prospect of a shared European culture, much less one shared with those across the pond.

We shouldn't forget the older cultural references within Buddhism, but in some cases we must provide teachings with cutural references which make more sense; there's no point talking about snakes and sticks in a country which has no snakes. LOL

Huifeng wrote:But the point I wanted to make was that most people nowadays think of modern "Greece" when the term "Greek" is used. But that is simply not the case here. I find it very difficult to say "In the past Buddhism was a Western religion" on this basis.

WOW! I personally don't know anyone who thinks of modern Greece when raising the history of Greek originated Buddhist kingdoms in West Asia (apparently there were Greek kingdoms scattered through West Asia prior to Alexander and his campaign resulted in Gandhara and I think one other Buddhist kingdom).

It's more accurate to say that Buddhism was a religion of some Greek and Greek derived peoples in some parts of West Asia from around 300 BC - 1000 AD (although apparently Gandhara actually predated Alexander's campaigns so a fuller history would be in order).

For example the famous "Questions of Milinda" between Milinda (Meander) and Nagasena are questions posed by the Bactrian (Bactria was a Buddhist kingdom basically in what is now northern Afghanistan) Greek Buddhist king to the Buddhist teacher Nagasena. I keep forgetting that Milinda was a Buddhist Greek king and have to remember this over time.

But the original poster referred to western cultural trappings helping to make Buddhist practice more meaningful to them. Buddhism has been in what we now conceive of as the West for 150 years so far and has been followed if not practiced by Westerners for that period.

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

Yeshe wrote:I also have difficulty with the concept of 'Western Buddhism' - we Europeans have spent most of our history fighting each other and, much as they try to arrange one, I see no prospect of a shared European culture, much less one shared with those across the pond.

Indeed a good point. When the concept of "Western" is raised people from America first of all think of the U.S. of A. and maybe the UK, France and Germany, or simply "Europe". But who thought about Estonian, Italian or Polish Buddhism where people speak quite different languages and have distinct cultures? Nevertheless, there are a lot on common about how "Westerners" view things so it is not pointless to talk about a Western Buddhism just as we do about Indian and East-Asian Buddhism.

Another note here is that there are different world views in any Western country and it is not irrelevant to consider if one is from a Roman Catholic or a Protestant country, and other facets of one's personal background about Christianity, Judaism, New Age and Materialism, etc. The whole "Western Buddhism" seems to be restricted to a "typical" modern materialist middle class person with Protestant influence, that is: American or maybe British.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

kirtu wrote:But the original poster referred to western cultural trappings helping to make Buddhist practice more meaningful to them. Buddhism has been in what we now conceive of as the West for 150 years so far and has been followed if not practiced by Westerners for that period.

Yeshe wrote:I also have difficulty with the concept of 'Western Buddhism' - we Europeans have spent most of our history fighting each other and, much as they try to arrange one, I see no prospect of a shared European culture, much less one shared with those across the pond.

Indeed a good point. When the concept of "Western" is raised people from America first of all think of the U.S. of A. and maybe the UK, France and Germany, or simply "Europe". But who thought about Estonian, Italian or Polish Buddhism where people speak quite different languages and have distinct cultures? Nevertheless, there are a lot on common about how "Westerners" view things so it is not pointless to talk about a Western Buddhism just as we do about Indian and East-Asian Buddhism.

Another note here is that there are different world views in any Western country and it is not irrelevant to consider if one is from a Roman Catholic or a Protestant country, and other facets of one's personal background about Christianity, Judaism, New Age and Materialism, etc. The whole "Western Buddhism" seems to be restricted to a "typical" modern materialist middle class person with Protestant influence, that is: American or maybe British.

Sometimes the term "anglophonic west" may be what is meant, ie. speakers of English in some form or another, eg. the UK, USA, Canada, Australasia,... and tapering into South Africa and parts of central America ... perhaps...

Sonrisa wrote:Just today, I realized how I can make my practice more meaningful to me when I recite Bodhisattva names or sutras (mostly sutras). I chant them. Not of course, how they are chanted in East Asia but kind of like Gregorian style chant that is now unfortunately not heard anymore in masses. As soon as I did this, I felt very connected to my spirituality and my personal practice. It helps me focus and actually remind myself that I am reciting the teachings of Shakyamuni.

Speaking from my cultural background, I would find (or at least I think I found) a way to incorporate the day of the dead into my practice and use it as a reminder of impermanence. The little sugar skulls are great reminders of impermanence too ^_^

It has been said that wherever Buddhism went, it adapted to the local culture. How come we dont see sutras written in Western style calligraphy or stained glass images of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas?

Perhaps I might start a Western style shakyo (sutra copying) in Western-style calligraphy.

Master Chin Kung said that when Buddhism was introduced to China, if way-places were built in Indian style, the Chinese people would of founded it to be too foreign.

Takes time perhaps?

Either way, Im still grateful for the dharma we have now regardless of culture.

While I have never been a Catholic in this life, I, too, love Gregorian Chants and think your idea is rather nice as I used to chant them when I was in Hinduism, on my own that is. And I also like your idea of incorporating the Day of the Dead. Having spent time in Mexico during the Day of the Dead, I also found that I liked how it was practiced.

That's a very crude and maybe inaccurate set of parallels, but is that the way people are drawn to religions?

No, I don't think it works that way at all. Many countries of the world are very Catholic and I don't see Vajrayana doing any better there. Is Vajrayana more popular in South American countries than it is in the US? I don't think so...

I can also disprove this by talking about myself. I never knew much about Catholicism and still don't know much about it and don't care. I stopped believing in all forms of Christianity when I was 12. Then I discovered Zen Buddhism when I was 16. Later I became interested in Tibetan Buddhism after I finished university.

The compassion teachings of Tibetan Buddhism have allowed me to view Christianity without hatred and with a bit of respect. So Vajrayana has allowed me to better appreciate some aspects of Christianity, but Christianity never taught me anything of value which has helped with Buddhism. All I ever saw in church were hypocrites who covered their cruelty with a thin veneer of fake friendliness and religious language.

And Catholicism has never had any significance for me whatsoever.

I find Eastern Orthodox churches to be the most pleasant and spiritual in feeling for me.